Back to Home

Request Correction

Use this form to request corrections to the paper metadata. Select the fields that need correction and provide the correct information.

Correction Guidelines

  1. Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.
  2. Fill in the suggested correction value for each field you want to correct.
  3. Provide your name and email so we can contact you if needed.

Correction requests are currently disabled.

Paper Information

lrec2026-main-173

BIS Reasoning 1.0: The First Large-Scale Japanese Benchmark for Belief-Inconsistent Syllogistic Reasoning

Paper Fields

Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.

Title

BIS Reasoning 1.0: The First Large-Scale Japanese Benchmark for Belief-Inconsistent Syllogistic Reasoning

Abstract

We present BIS Reasoning 1.0, the first large-scale Japanese dataset of syllogistic reasoning problems explicitly designed to evaluate belief-inconsistent reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Unlike prior resources such as NeuBAROCO and JFLD, which emphasize general or belief-aligned logic, BIS Reasoning 1.0 systematically introduces logically valid yet belief-inconsistent syllogisms to expose belief bias—the tendency to accept believable conclusions irrespective of validity. We benchmark a representative suite of cutting-edge models—including OpenAI GPT-5 variants, GPT-4o, Qwen, and prominent Japanese LLMs—under a uniform, zero-shot protocol. Reasoning-centric models achieve near-perfect accuracy on BIS Reasoning 1.0 (e.g., Qwen3-32B ≈99% and GPT-5-mini up to ≈99.7%), while GPT-4o attains around 80%. Earlier Japanese-specialized models underperform, often well below 60%, whereas the latest llm-jp-3.1-13b-instruct4 markedly improves to the mid-80% range. These results indicate that robustness to belief-inconsistent inputs is driven more by explicit reasoning optimization than by language specialization or scale alone. Our analysis further shows that even top-tier systems falter when logical validity conflicts with intuitive or factual beliefs, and that performance is sensitive to prompt design and inference-time reasoning effort. We discuss implications for safety-critical domains—law, healthcare, and scientific literature—where strict logical fidelity must override intuitive belief to ensure reliability.


Authors

Expand an author to correct their information. Use the remove button to request author removal, or add a new author.


PDF Attachment

You may attach a PDF as a corrected version of the paper. Max file size: 10MB. Only PDF files are accepted.

Drag & drop a PDF here, or click to select

Your Information

Author Declaration *

Select at least one field to correct using the edit buttons above.